1. Trademark registration application pending for over fifteen years — Writ for direction to decide. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J
Nirmala Kabra – Appellant
Versus
Registrar Of Trade Marks – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18998/2022
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dharmendra Kumar Gupta
For the Respondents: Divyesh Maheshwari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dharmendra Kumar Gupta
For the Respondents: Divyesh Maheshwari
The right to speedy and expeditious disposal of trademark registration applications is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; indefinite delays violate the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017.
Headnote:(A) Trade Mark Registration - Delay in Adjudication - Failure to decide an application pending for over fifteen years is a violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 50 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017. (Para 8)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Right to Speedy Disposal - Excessive and indefinite delay in resolving statutory applications undermines the purpose of the registration system, erodes public confidence, and constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. (Para 9)
(C) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - The right to speedy and expeditious disposal of applications is an integral part of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the Registrar of Trademarks can keep a registration application pending for an indefinite period contrary to the rules and the Constitution.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought decision of pending application; respondent opposed but could not controvert delay. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Writ allowed — Registrar directed to decide pending application within three months and all pending applications expeditiously per Rule 50. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 )
4. What is the mandatory procedure for hearing and decision under Rule 50 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017?
After closure of evidence, Registrar must give notice of first hearing at least one month later, allow adjournments with cause up to two per party not exceeding 30 days, and decide. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
5. Does excessive delay in deciding trademark registration applications violate principles of natural justice?
Yes, such delay undermines purpose, causes loss of evidence, increased costs, injustice, and erodes public confidence, violating natural justice. (Para 9 )
6. Is the right to speedy disposal of trademark applications a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Yes, the right to speedy and expeditious disposal is an integral part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. (Para 10 )
7. Can a court issue a general direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending applications expeditiously?
Yes, the court issued a general direction to decide all pending applications expeditiously in terms of Rule 50. (Para 11 )
Order
Reportable
Over the past decade, there has been a substantial rise in the number of trademark applications filed in India. As a matter of fact, in 2020, India overtook Japan in the number of filed trade mark applications and became the fifth largest trade mark filer worldwide. But it has been noticed that lakhs of applications are pending with the Registrar of Trademarks in India at various stages of registration. In the instant case as well, the application seeking registration of trademark, submitted by the petitioner in the year 2010, is still lying pending for its adjudication inspite of passing of more than one and a half decade.
1. With a limited prayer, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the Registrar of Trademarks (for short ‘respondent-Registrar’) to decide the application submitted by the petitioner seeking registration of its Trademark - ‘Breastone’.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an application in this regard was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent Registrar on 25.06.2010 but inspite of passing of considerable time, till date the said application has not been decided by the respondent-Registrar by passing a reasoned and speaking order, so appropriate direction be issued to the respondent-Registrar to decide the petitioner’s registration application expeditiously within a time frame.
3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-Registrar opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner has submitted an application seeking registration of its trademark ‘Breastone’ in the office of the Registrar of Trademarks on 25.06.2010. Thereafter, the said application has been opposed by the respondent No. 2 by way of filing opposition dated 07.03.2013, and after completion of pleadings of both the sides, the matter was posted for recording of evidence on 25.07.2017 thereafter nothing has been done so far inspite of passing of more than eight years since. The Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017’) deals with the complete procedure and mechanism or application of registration of trademark, any oppositions to the application and subsequent acceptance or rejection of application.
6. Rule 50 of the Rules of 2017 deals with hearing and decision and the same is reproduced as under:-
“ Rule 50 . Hearing and decision.
(1)The Registrar, after the closure of the evidence, shall give notice to the parties of the first date of hearing. The date of hearing shall be for a date at least one month after the date of the first notice.
(2)A party to a proceeding may make a request for adjournment of the hearing with reasonable cause in Form TM-M accompanied by the prescribed fee, at least three days before the date of hearing and the Registrar, if he thinks fit to do so, and upon such terms as he may direct, may adjourn the hearing and intimate the parties accordingly: Provided that no party shall be given more than two adjournments and each adjournment shall not be for more than thirty days.
(3)If the applicant is not present at the adjourned date of hearing and at the time mentioned in the notice, the application may be treated as abandoned.
(4)If the opponent is not present at the adjourned date of hearing and at time mentioned in the notice, the opposition may be dismissed for want of prosecution and the application may proceed to registration subject to section 19.
(5)The Registrar shall consider written arguments if submitted by a party to the proceeding.
(6)The decision of the Registrar shall be communicated to the parties in writing at the address given for service.”
7. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule indicates that after closure of evidence, notice for first date of hearing would be given to both parties for a d
